Intrigue and Updates on IP Bills

If you’re hep to the internet, you’ve probably come across a wave of information — and even outrage — around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). This controversial legislation has the stated goal of curbing foreign “rogue websites,” but the initial version of the bill could have done way more than that. Hence the widespread disapproval.

We’re all for combatting piracy, but the questionion is how to best go about doing it. The original SOPA would have undermined free expression while negatively impacting the sites and services today’s musicians use every day. This is why we took a stand and urged Congress to go back to the drawing board and consult with musicians and music entrepreneurs before passing legislation that could impact innovation and creative commerce.

We’re happy to say that the pressure from musicians, arts organizations, technologists, entrepreneurs and internet users has made Congress realize that these SOPA is undercooked. Opposition to the legislation has been growing steadily, with major websites and online communities making millions of users aware of the bills’ potential dangers to free speech and creative entrepreneurship.

The House of Representatives has all but killed their version of the bill, or at least signaled their intent to go back to square one and bring in more stakeholders. On the Senate side, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is still planning to bring the more reasonable companion bill, the PROTECT-IP Act (PIPA), up for a vote on the Senate Floor on or around January 24. But with pressure brewing, it remains to be seen whether this is a viable political option.

Interestingly, an alternative to SOPA and PIPA — the OPEN Act, introduced by Sentator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) — was never seriously considered by the major rightsholder groups so keen to hammer their preferred bills home. Too bad, because a re-written SOPA may look more like OPEN. That is, if it manages to survive this session of Congress.

On Saturday, the White House got involved in the debate via an official response to a pair of petitions to Whitehouse.org. In it, the Administration said it could not support bills that could censor legitimate online activity, inhibit innovation, or create new cybersecurity risks — all of which were the main concerns of the anti-SOPA/PIPA crowd. The White House also stated that Domain Name Service (DNS) provisions, a tentpole of both bills, “pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online.” Sort of like we’ve been saying all along. The administration suggested that any bills be “narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law” and “prevent[ing] overly broad private rights of action.” Lastly, they called for additional online discussion and public input concerning how best to proceed.

We think this is a well-reasoned statement.

So where are we now? Well, with SOPA essentially stalled in the House, all eyes are on the Upper Chamber. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) recently said that there would be an ammendment to PIPA to look at the impacts of the DNS filtering provision. Around the same time, six Republican Senators — including Chuck Grassley (IA), Orrin Hatch (UT), Jeff Sessions (AL), John Cornyn(TX), Mike Lee (UT) and Tom Coburn (OK) — sent a letter to Reid seeking a delay to the floor vote. This is significant, as Grassley and Hatch were among the bill’s 40 cosponsors. Additionally, Pat Toomey (R-PA) stated that he can’t support this version of PIPA; Sen. Mark Udall (R-CO) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) echoed that position.

On January 18, tons of websites, including the highly-trafficked Reddit and Wikipedia, intend to “go dark” in protest of the upcoming Senate vote. FMC still thinks that, if there’s a problem, we need to figure out a narrowly-tailored approach to address it. In the meantime, those looking to weigh in with their representatives can head to AmericanCensorship.org.

Comments

Kudos to FMC. The "copyright clause" of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) authorizes Congress to give exclusive rights to "authors" with the purpose of advancing the progress of science and the useful arts. Pretty much anyone age 3 and up is an "author" who enjoys these exclusive rights, but 99% of the works are authored with the full intent - and hope - that they be shared widely, without remuneration. The 99% thrive on an open Internet that allows people all over the world to have access to their blog posts, articles, art, photos, music, musings, and whatnot. Thanks, FMC, for siding with the 99%, and not with entrenched copyright holding companies who fear that an open Internet will cause them to lose market share to self-published, self-distributed authors, or those who choose to work with independent publishers that give them voice rather than control.

Casey you have truly raised your reputational rating. Many of us are capable of going to dc and pertitioning our representatives, but the fact of calling a hearing or canceling are hidden. The lobbyists we know believe it is their right to earn money to know the secret language. Keep it up. This is a long war. The riaa should have ruined their reputation with Mitch glazier's midnight legislation but he is still walking amongst the decent people. I believe the public already thinks the bills are cancelled, as well as the false assertion that the white house has clearly indicated a veto. This kind of thing will be added to an unrelated issues, such as a satellite bill, and the public will not fnd out. That is the way the riaa operates.

Tying in the 99% theme is the way to go. Those of us in the music business have long watched aghast as corporate lawyers handed in their own legislation to the congressional staffers. We have gotten nowhere in the Sacramento hearings with efforts to throw out the slave contracts, as a fiduciary obligation on the owners's part. And the union is silent. You have to watch a congressional hearing or court case to see the dozen lobbyists parade in like pinguins. This behavior would cause an instant response of disgust if an actual jury trial took place. The corporate types long ago lost their grasp of the consumer views.

Of course, if SOPA is passed all of the businesses it helps will be more successful, but from my gathering,SOPA will be pretty inconvenient to a lot of people. Good people, who make a living on the internet.